Random House to Adopt Agency Model Starting 3/1 [ Edited ]

[AlanNJ Inspired Bibliophile]

---

mpebbs wrote:

  I think calling anyone a fool for doing something you would not is a personal attack even if you do not name them. I also think using smilies to offset a really snarky comment is ridiculous, we are not fools in actuality.

---

Speak for yourself!  I'm a fool and I'm proud of it!  (I think) 

AND WE ARE NOW ON PAGE 7 FOR ALL OF THOSE KEEPING SCORE AT HOME

[mpebbs]

Well if spending way too much on books makes me a fool...I think of it more as my addiction!

[ABthree]

---

AlanNJ wrote:

---

mpebbs wrote:

  I think calling anyone a fool for doing something you would not is a personal attack even if you do not name them. I also think using smilies to offset a really snarky comment is ridiculous, we are not fools in actuality.

---

Speak for yourself!  I'm a fool and I'm proud of it!  (I think) 

---

SMILE when you say that, Partner! 

[Ya_Ya]

---

AlanNJ wrote:

AND WE ARE NOW ON PAGE 7 FOR ALL OF THOSE KEEPING SCORE AT HOME

---

LOL.

[AlanNJ Inspired Bibliophile]

---

ABthree wrote:

---

AlanNJ wrote:

---

mpebbs wrote:

  I think calling anyone a fool for doing something you would not is a personal attack even if you do not name them. I also think using smilies to offset a really snarky comment is ridiculous, we are not fools in actuality.

---

Speak for yourself!  I'm a fool and I'm proud of it!  (I think) 

---

SMILE when you say that, Partner! 

---

I was going to but I didn't think my comment was snarky enough to qualify...

[mpebbs]

---

ABthree wrote:

---

AlanNJ wrote:

---

mpebbs wrote:

  I think calling anyone a fool for doing something you would not is a personal attack even if you do not name them. I also think using smilies to offset a really snarky comment is ridiculous, we are not fools in actuality.

---

Speak for yourself!  I'm a fool and I'm proud of it!  (I think) 

---

SMILE when you say that, Partner! 

---

Give me a smiley blowing raspberries or with a neener, neener quote bubble and I will!

[Nallia Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

ellsbells930 wrote:

---

Nallia wrote:

I think people who automatically judge others with different priorities to be fools are the real fools.

---

Thanks for the personal attack.  My comment was a generic comment, while yours was specifically aimed at me.  Have a nice day.

---

Anytime.  Since I base my ebook buying decisions on whether I want the books and not what they cost I am one of those people you called fools.

There was nothing general in your remark.  You insulted a whole bunch of people on this site alone.  I was just returning the favor as generically as you. 

[Nallia Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

AlanNJ wrote:

---

mpebbs wrote:

  I think calling anyone a fool for doing something you would not is a personal attack even if you do not name them. I also think using smilies to offset a really snarky comment is ridiculous, we are not fools in actuality.

---

Speak for yourself!  I'm a fool and I'm proud of it!  (I think) 

AND WE ARE NOW ON PAGE 7 FOR ALL OF THOSE KEEPING SCORE AT HOME

---

You are, but I'm only on page 4. 

[tmgn]

I have my nook for over a year now, and I am really enjoying it.  When the nook first came out, it was advertised that you can lend books to other nook users.  What wasn't clarified initially was that it was going to be very limited.  I don't think most of us realized that until the first nooks were shipped and people started realizing this limitation.

I am having a problem justifying higher prices on ebooks when we don't really own them.  We can't loan them out as many times as we would like.  I remember the Amazon "1984" and "Animal Farm" Incident sometimes.  I'd like to believe nothing like that will ever happen again.  I believe Amazon refunded everyone - at least that's my understanding.  I also thought I read somewhere that Apple was removing some apps from their devices.  I really don't mind spending a few more dollars if I can do what I want with my ebook like I can a DTB.  Let me lend it as often as I want and as long as I want, and don't remotely delete it from my library - then I can justify the higher prices.  The reality right now, however, is that we still don't own the ebooks no matter how much we pay for them.  This is what it all comes down to for me.  So, I will "purchase" new ebooks when they are at a lower price that compensates me for what I believe is limited use.

[Doug_Pardee Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

tmgn wrote:
don't remotely delete it from my library

---

As long as you back it up, you're fine. The only people who have problems are those who trust that the booksellers will always be in business, that their contracts to provide the e-books will never expire or be revoked, and that they'll never lose any data. I can assure you that this is false hope, for any bookseller. Stuff happens.

Back up the e-books you want to keep. Then you don't have to worry about them.

[tmgn]

I know you should back up your library in case something happens.  I was more concerned with the deliberate deletion of a book from a person's library like Amazon did a couple of years ago with "1984" and "Animal Farm."  I think (and I could be wrong) that Amazon didn't just delete the illegal copies; they also ended up deleting legal downloaded copies.  Like I said before, I believe everyone got refunded, but the whole remotely removing a book from someone's library - and done so deliberately - bothers me.  I know everyone should back up their libraries in case of a glitch or a hacker bringing down a website or - gasp - B&N going out of business.  I was just questioning charging higher prices when we don't really "own" the books.  I had memory cards go bad, too.

[ABthree]

---

tmgn wrote:

I know you should back up your library in case something happens.  I was more concerned with the deliberate deletion of a book from a person's library like Amazon did a couple of years ago with "1984" and "Animal Farm."  I think (and I could be wrong) that Amazon didn't just delete the illegal copies; they also ended up deleting legal downloaded copies. 

---

As I recall, the issue was not legal vs. illegal on the customer's part; it was the determination that Amazon did not have a right to sell those particular editions in the first place.  So every download was "illegal" (if we want to use those terms) because of Amazon's error.

It's true that everyone was reimbursed.  However, the backfire was so severe that not only Amazon, but B&N and everyone else is being very careful never to have to repeat that particular chain of events.

[ABthree]

---

mpebbs wrote:

---

Give me a smiley blowing raspberries or with a neener, neener quote bubble and I will!

---

I'm glad someone else thinks that we're smiley-deficient on this board.  There are a couple of very useful ones (like "that makes me sick!") that are notably absent. 

[ABthree]

---

Nallia wrote:

---

AlanNJ wrote:

---

mpebbs wrote:

  I think calling anyone a fool for doing something you would not is a personal attack even if you do not name them. I also think using smilies to offset a really snarky comment is ridiculous, we are not fools in actuality.

---

Speak for yourself!  I'm a fool and I'm proud of it!  (I think) 

AND WE ARE NOW ON PAGE 7 FOR ALL OF THOSE KEEPING SCORE AT HOME

---

You are, but I'm only on page 4. 

---

Only 4 for me, too.  Alan must, uh, have a little one. 

[Ya_Ya]

---

ABthree wrote:

I'm glad someone else thinks that we're smiley-deficient on this board.  There are a couple of very useful ones (like "that makes me sick!") that are notably absent. 

---

I personally miss the crying smiley.  Sometimes "laughing so hard I'm crying" is a much better fit to what I'm trying to get across than the "Very Happy" smiley.  

[ABthree]

---

Ya_Ya wrote:

---

ABthree wrote:

I'm glad someone else thinks that we're smiley-deficient on this board.  There are a couple of very useful ones (like "that makes me sick!") that are notably absent. 

---

I personally miss the crying smiley.  Sometimes "laughing so hard I'm crying" is a much better fit to what I'm trying to get across than the "Very Happy" smiley.  

---

So true -- I miss that one, too!

[bklvr896]

---

tmgn wrote:

I have my nook for over a year now, and I am really enjoying it.  When the nook first came out, it was advertised that you can lend books to other nook users.  What wasn't clarified initially was that it was going to be very limited.  I don't think most of us realized that until the first nooks were shipped and people started realizing this limitation.

I am having a problem justifying higher prices on ebooks when we don't really own them.  We can't loan them out as many times as we would like.  I remember the Amazon "1984" and "Animal Farm" Incident sometimes.  I'd like to believe nothing like that will ever happen again.  I believe Amazon refunded everyone - at least that's my understanding.  I also thought I read somewhere that Apple was removing some apps from their devices.  I really don't mind spending a few more dollars if I can do what I want with my ebook like I can a DTB.  Let me lend it as often as I want and as long as I want, and don't remotely delete it from my library - then I can justify the higher prices.  The reality right now, however, is that we still don't own the ebooks no matter how much we pay for them.  This is what it all comes down to for me.  So, I will "purchase" new ebooks when they are at a lower price that compensates me for what I believe is limited use.

---

Since I've never based my book buying decisions on whether or not I could lend it to someone, it doesn't factor into my decision on eBooks either.  I buy a book for my enjoyment and if I lend it to someone that's just an added bonus.  So I guess I don't get the "I can't lend it therefore it's worth less" concept.

[tmgn]

I don't recall ever saying "it's worth less."

[Nallia Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

ABthree wrote:

---

Nallia wrote:

---

AlanNJ wrote:

---

mpebbs wrote:

  I think calling anyone a fool for doing something you would not is a personal attack even if you do not name them. I also think using smilies to offset a really snarky comment is ridiculous, we are not fools in actuality.

---

Speak for yourself!  I'm a fool and I'm proud of it!  (I think) 

AND WE ARE NOW ON PAGE 7 FOR ALL OF THOSE KEEPING SCORE AT HOME

---

You are, but I'm only on page 4. 

---

Only 4 for me, too.  Alan must, uh, have a little one. 

---

I am so not going there.  Maybe this guy will. 

[Ya_Ya]

---

tmgn wrote:

I don't recall ever saying "it's worth less."

---

But you did say that you'd "pay more" if you could lend it.  Therefore, lendable is worth more?  Not lendable is worth less?  No?